Thorny

Fair enough

No I just didn’t find your logic very internally congruent towards the end there relative to the other post of yours I gave the thumbs up to i realize they are different situations contextually but I much preferred the “help where you can get it” take Rather than the one that leaned towards “probably wouldn’t help much”

Definitely. The biggest thing for them that worked in their favour and made the suggestion of the “plan” possible was that “long form rebuild, sacrifice now to build your future!” fit in so snuggly with not spending to the cap. The spending is the dictator of strategy. The relaying of the strategy is simply messaging

At least with critics there’s still mind paid to actual film criticism IMDb and anything user related is essentially a poisoned well when it comes to any film or show (see: anything Star Wars) thst even verges on whatever people are defining today as “woke”. or even just the “lore” good god. Toe out of line and a segment of SW fans torpedo the score on mass lmao But if you shoe horn in a deep fake Luke Skywalker kicking ass: masterpiece

Maybe even “middle(!) 6” if we are lucky oooo middle 6

This new fellow however you spell his name would fall under a “no stone unturned” mindset and it’s the correct tact to take. you know, enemy of perfect/good? can’t let “not a guarantee of improvement and probably not a ton if any” be the enemy of “a chance for improvement” This team isn’t in a position historically to turn its nose up at a single grain of rice

Obviously I agree with your logic and strategy but I’m putting in my “you always leave out assists for some reason” disclaimer for posterity

I was just asking if he could play C - the lineup would, if he could if you actually read my tweet you’d see it was more so a thought experiment - I find my perception almost changes when I can identify a solid 1C It was absolutely not rhetorical

“This must be some sort of rule circumvention?” - Kevyn Adams

Has Benson ever played centre?

That seems logical to me edit: actually, does it? this bears thinking about. Probably need to let this tumble dry for a bit

As a matter of practicality I don’t see how the model *can* account for it - my point is a function of team building not raw value comp. Let’s see if I can actually convey this- Even if the model has accurately figured out the ratio and a hypothetical +1 is exactly 1/7th the on ice value of a +7, a team won’t get as much value from the 7 pieces as the 1 due to dominance of role if you could figure out EXACTLY what McDavid’s talent was and you divided it among 23 players, which do you take? McDavid or the 23?

Well if we score 254 (269 last year) and save 10 more extra, we’ll go from a -20 to a -25. If we score 254 and the D save us 20, we’ll get to -15

Agree, but interesting also in terms of the mechanics of how a breakdown like that translates. Cause it’s obv not an exact comp - whatever number you a lot to McDavid, say, +20 you aren’t getting equivalent value from 20, +1 players. I don’t necessarily see a +9 accumulated majorly on the fringes as equivalent to adding a +9 to your top six

With our internal cap it’s actually the ~750m dollar question

Sorry i didn’t mean ever I meant this offseason You listed a 54 goal improvement above something like that would certainly qualify

We need dishers

Right candidly i don’t think +impact on the fridges will translate to much of anything at all, as is usually the case. I don’t think 20 Nickels makes a dollar in the nhl, is what I’m saying. More less to me still looks like my “willing to write off JJ / Kesselring as a wash” to my eye when digging in a bit (with of course them actually preferring Kesselring by a non-negligible margin) if that’s the case we could very well be at a “probably a little bit improved, likely not enough” take you see floating around from liger and others

Oh ok so it’s their own scale/assigned ratings, thanks. Kinda cool where does the other +7 come from, after subtracting Peterka’s 4 from Kesselrings’s 6? 1/2 each to danforth Lyon Doan and Timmins? And the guys we ditched are all zeroes?

Anyways; if you are right it means we needed to improve by 35 goals. Have we done that?

I think the way it works is you get to a certain amount of points/place in standings and the team makes it regardless of differential haha, but I take your meaning But when it says “net rating added” does that refer to plus minus?